Date post: | 11-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | esmond-conley |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Automatic Labeling of EEGsUsing Deep Learning
M. Golmohammadi, A. Harati, S. LopezI. Obeid and J. Picone
Neural Engineering Data ConsortiumCollege of Engineering
Temple UniversityPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Mercedes Jacobson, MDSteven Tobochnik
Department of NeurologySchool of MedicineTemple University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
The Temple University Hospital EEG CorpusSynopsis: The world’s largest publicly available EEG corpus consisting of 20,000+ EEGs collectedfrom 15,000 patients, collected over 12 years. Includes physician’s diagnoses and patient medical histories. Number of channels varies from 24 to 36. Signal data distributed in an EDF format.
Impact:• Sufficient data to support application of state of the
art machine learning algorithms
• Patient medical histories, particularly drug treatments, supports statistical analysis of correlations between signals and treatments
• Historical archive also supports investigation of EEG changes over time for a given patient
• Enables the development of real-time monitoring
Database Overview:• 21,000+ EEGs collected at Temple University Hospital
from 2002 to 2013 (an ongoing process)
• Recordings vary from 24 to 36 channels of signal data sampled at 250 Hz
• Patients range in age from 18 to 90 with an average of 1.4 EEGs per patient
• Data includes a test report generated by a technician, an impedance report and a physician’s report; data from 2009 forward inlcudes ICD-9 codes
• A total of 1.8 TBytes of data
• Personal informationhas been redacted
• Clinical history and medication history are included
• Physician notes are captured in three fields: description, impression and correlation fields.
Automated Interpretation of EEGsGoals: (1) To assist healthcare professionals in interpreting electroencephalography (EEG) tests,thereby improving the quality and efficiency of a physician’s diagnostic capabilities; (2) Providea real-time alerting capability that addresses a critical gap in long-term monitoring technology.
Impact:• Patients and technicians will receive immediate
feedback rather than waiting days or weeks for results
• Physicians receive decision-making support that reduces their time spent interpreting EEGs
• Medical students can be trained with the system and use search tools make it easy to view patient histories and comparable conditions in other patients
• Uniform diagnostic techniques can be developed
Milestones:• Develop an enhanced set of features based on
temporal and spectral measures (1Q’2014)
• Statistical modeling of time-varying data sources in bioengineering using deep learning (2Q’2014)
• Label events at an accuracy of 95% measured on the held-out data from the TUH EEG Corpus (3Q’2014)
• Predict diagnoses with an F-score (a weighted average of precision and recall) of 0.95 (4Q’2014)
• Demonstrate a clinically-relevant system and assess the impact on physician workflow (4Q’2014)
TUH Department of Neurology December 11, 20144
Real-Time Automatic Interpretation
TUH Department of Neurology December 11, 201455
Three classes of events:1) SPSW: spike and sharp wave
2) GPED: generalized periodic epileptiform discharges (GPED)(includes triphasic)
3) PLED: periodic lateralized epileptiform discharges
Three classes of background models:4) EYBL: eye blink (and other eye artifacts)
5) ARTF: Artifact
6) BCKG: Background
Other classifications (eventually):7) Focal: occurs on a subset of the channels
Generalized: occurs on all channels
8) Continuous (CONT): occurs continuously throughout the dataIntermittent (INTM): occurs sporadically
Current Classification System For TUH EEG
TUH Department of Neurology December 11, 201466
• State of the Art on the CHB-MIT Scalp EEG Database: Sensitivity: 96.5% False Alarm Rate: 3.8/hr
• TUH EEG Corpus:
DET: Detection rate – % (spike/gped/pled) detected as (bckg/ar/eb) FA: False alarm rate – % (bckg/ar/eb) detected as (spike/gped/pled) ERR: Traditional error rate – % incorrect guesses for all 6 classes
Performance
System DET FA ERR
Simple Heuristics 99% 64% 74%
Random Forest 85% 6% 37%
System 3 84% 4% 37%
System 4 82% 4% 39%
System 5 89% 4% 36%
TUH Department of Neurology December 11, 201477
Live Input Demonstration
TUH Department of Neurology December 11, 20148
Summary
• Performance at a level where the system is clinically relevant – need your input
• Commercialization process is underway
• DARPA / NIH / NSF funding is critical
• Sustainable data collection process
• New opportunities (e.g., EEG + MRI?)